Does society's increasing complexity make us more or less susceptible to catastrophe?The answer is probably "Yes." There are factors that make us more susceptible to disaster (witness what happens when one element in a just-in-time manufacturing process breaks down: the whole thing grinds to a halt). But others seem to make us more resilient (like the fact that millions of people now know more about computers than the brightest computer scientists of 1950, thus being better-armed to solve complex problems than ever before). It's worth taking a look at how prepared we are for catastrophic risks, but we shouldn't just throw in the towel because of fear.

The oldest American alive is in Ames, IowaShe's approaching her 115th birthday. We need to do a far better job of extending human longevity and the quality of life in old age. There are plenty of people who retire as quickly as possible, ceasing to share their useful knowledge and skills with the rest of the economy well before they're "spent." But then there are people like architect Philip Johnson, who was still designing new buildings at age 95, and Norman Borlaug, who was still developing life-saving food hybrids at a similar age. We don't need everyone contributing productively to technology and the economy well into old age, but the truth of the matter is that we have a certain number of brilliant minds at work in the world, and those brilliant minds produce value far in excess of their fair share. The more value they can create, the better-off all of us are. Just for perspective: If we assume that genius is randomly distributed in the human population, and that it is equally likely to emerge or develop at one time as it is in another, then even if there had been just one Isaac Newton in 1642, at a time when there were only 545 million people on the entire planet, then today with 6.8 billion of us, there should be at least 12 modern-day Newtons. To find them, cultivate their talents, and encourage them to be productive and creative well into old age should be one of the highest priorities in every aspect of government and education. Great ideas move human welfare forward. One hazard we do face: There's lots of attraction to put great minds to work doing things like producing computer games and trying to "game" the stock market. Those are assuredly not the highest uses of those great minds -- even if they should be absolutely free to choose whatever pursuits they like. The difference between what they "create" running hedge funds, for instance, and what they could create in terms of useful innovations is a deadweight loss to society.

Twitter co-founder calls his service "fundamental" to the future of governmentWhile it can be helpful, there's nothing about his particular service -- or even style of service, as there are and will be competitors in his marketplace -- that's especially "fundamental." The main appeal of microblogging as a means of interaction between celebrities or public officials and the demos is that the back-and-forth exchanges are simultaneously public and very, very brief. With Twitter's 140-character limit, questions and answers alike have to be brief. There's no room for extended ranting and raving by a disgruntled taxpayer or a maniacal fan, and since a response only requires 30 or 60 seconds on the part of the celebrity or official, they can appear highly responsive (or "accessible" as some would put it) without much effort. But, again, there's really nothing novel about the technology or the communication. People have been writing fan letters, editorials, and critiques of their public officials for centuries, and even at 44 cents for a first-class postage stamp, there's not much barrier to participation.

Report from the frontier of computingScientists trying to figure out how computers can process information faster than ever are working on using atoms to carry photons around at blazingly high speeds. So far, they've had trouble getting the two to play nicely together, but a discovery that suggests they just need to let chaos take over appears to be making it easier to bundle light to matter and shoot it around. Even the enlightened reader will probably need to read the article three times over to understand what's going on.